Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm 3

[KootK]

I've often thought that it might be fun to work as a structural engineer within an architecture firm. In my head, I imagine that there would be a lot of collaboration early on in projects that would be fun and fruitful. One the flip side, one is always concerned about being a second class citizen at a big A / little E firm. You'd never be as close to the paying clients as you would be in a engineering only firm. But then maybe that would have some perks too. I'd have to think that internal clients would be a bit more accommodating than external clients.

Anyone have any thoughts on this that they'd be willing to share?

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

 

[PicoStruc]

And you are limiting your structural department to a single architect client... cutting you a lot of potential jobs !

 

[jayrod12]

I worked at a small engineering firm for 6 years that was partnered directly with a mid-size (maybe slightly smaller than the average mid-size) architecture firm in the same office space. We worked together on the majority of projects that required both A&S. It was actually quite pleasant. Collaboration happened early and often and was generally more productive than my other experience.

We could easily explain why what they wanted wouldn't stand and could come up with solutions on the spot just by popping a desk or two over.

I wasn't meeting clients much at that time in my career though. The company (engineering) owner generally did all of the meeting clients and selling the company type stuff that happens mostly at the beginning of the project.

 

[KootK]

It would be limiting work to a single architect. That being said, larger architecture firms that are set up this way in my area have an almost infinite supply of available structural work. Most of it is done out of house. It would just be a matter of competing for that work to be done internally. It would basically be canned business development which has some appealing aspects to it.

It is true, though, that exposure to new clients would be very limited as there would essentially be only one client.

@Jayrod: would you ever consider returning to that kind of environment or do you prefer to be "out in the wild" so to speak?

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

 

[jayrod12]

You know what, I straight up don't know the answer to that.

The money is better at the bigger firm (typically) and the diversity in the projects is also much higher at the bigger firm.

But at times I do miss the generally slower pace, and the camaraderie of the small firm.

I have also found so far that at the smaller firm I worked off of drawings that were much more complete architecturally at the start of a project compared to the large firm. However that could be strictly due to the architectural firm we were with. They were a wicked architect to work with.

 

[darthsoilsguy2]

we have Arch, SE, Civil, Landscape Arch. it seems to make sense for our situation... small firm in a small town without any big towns nearby... and we tend to hit a lot of renovation jobs. all those renovation surprises turn a nightmare into a bigger nightmare when dealing with consulting designers. The SE in this scenario is more of a utility player in the Arch Dept and we still end up using Structural subs when the design requires analyses by software that isn't financially worth licensing.

 

[MotorCity]

A couple of disadvantages:

1. If you are the only structural engineer at the firm, you would not have any peers to bounce ideas off of or give you a sanity check

2. If times got tough, you might be the first expense they cut

Advantage:

1. An architect's piece of the pie (10 to 15%) is often much larger than our piece of the pie (1 to 2%).....maybe some of that $$$ would trickle down to you (in a perfect world)

 

[KootK]

Excellent points all -- thank you.

1. If you are the only structural engineer at the firm, you would not have any peers to bounce ideas off of or give you a sanity check

Eh, I get most of my sanity checks here these days anyhow.

1. An architect's piece of the pie (10 to 15%) is often much larger than our piece of the pie (1 to 2%).....maybe some of that $$$ would trickle down to you (in a perfect world)

It's a nice thought. However, I would have to beat out external firms with regard to fees in order to get work. I suppose that I could ride the line a little closer than usual knowing that, in the event of a tie, I'd be the preferred consultant.



I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

 

[Signious]

I am employed by a small eng shop and we have an agreement with another mid-sized architecture firm to do work with them. The whole idea from the start is as you put it - save a lot of time by working hand in hand thought the project as opposed to sending revisions back and fourth on the back end.

Also make a clear devision of work and practices early on - with a few of my projects where I am working directly with an arch she left me out of the loop on a couple of small project changes which I am scrambling to incorporate for a building permit set she wants to file for tonight!

I would be hesitant to jump right in and try to get 100% of your projects from the arch firm, especially if this is in Alberta. Ask to see their project history for the last year or so and check to see if you would have enough work after taking into account the slowdown!

Perhaps working directly for them, but having them set up an engineering division where your meat-and-potatoes every day work would come from in house projects, but the cherry pie & ice cream is out of house design work to keep your day full.

I really like the idea if they are a creative group - it would be great experience & could result in some awesome looking stuff.

 

[KootK]

Thanks for the feedback Signious. I am in AB so the slowdown is a consideration. The scenario I'm thinking of would be where I was the A/E firms internal structural engineering department.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

 

[Signious]

Yah, I think that would work as long as they give you the freedom to seek outside work.

They may want a piece of that work if you are doing it in their building, but it could result in better job security for you diversifying out their income. Just give them some sort of guarantee that they are first in the pecking order for your time.

 

[dcarr82775]

So you would be their internal structural department yet still have to compete against outside firms? I would think the overhead savings would be sufficient enough.

 

[KootK]

That's exactly right Dcarr. The hope is that the overhead savings might be enough to allow fees to be a little fatter. I could certainly attempt to compete for work with other architects. I would have to imagine that the likelihood of that would be pretty slim however. Architects don't usually care to buy their consulting services from other architects.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

 

[Signious]

diarrhea of the fingers, take what you want - leave what you don't, but here are my 2 cents:

I would be cautious about moving in house and still bidding internal jobs. You will save on overhead but it leaves you open to all the risk with the architect taking the lions share of the benefit. Nothing is keeping joe-schmo rubber-stamp from undercutting you.

Also, all those delicious billable consulting hours for conversations now become grey area as you are in-house and what constitutes an interpersonal-conversation over a consultation.

The phrase, 'Don't half ass two things, full ass one thing' comes to mind with this. You are either an external consultant or an internal employee.

 

[KootK]

Thanks for that Signeous. Another issue, along similar lines as your concern regarding billable conversations, is extra scope items. If one of my architect buddies shows up at the end of a project wanting me to design structural support for toilet paper holders, I'll have little choice but to say yes.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

 

[StructuresSteve]

Hi guys - this is my first post on this forum but it is about something that is quite close to my heart.

I am all about the spirit of total collaboration and I can imagine a setup where the architect and engineer working in the same organisation, towards a common goal, would be advantageous.

I currently work for one of the worlds largest industrial engineering firms, but I start a new job on Monday with what can only be described as a "micro-consultancy". Six guys in a room trying to work towards the common good.

I thought early on in my career that working for one of the big firms would be great for team-working and interdisciplinary cooperation but it has turned out to be quite the opposite. We all work in our discipline teams blinkered and it is sometimes almost like all the disciplines work in different, competing companies!

I think Ove Arup had the right idea - total architecture and full collaboration between all interested parties is the way forward for the creative process. It's just such a pity that he said this around fifty years ago but we still don't seem to be able to achieve it.

Do you think our ego prevents us from fully realising our creative potential?

 

[WARose]

I started out my career at an A/E firm that did mostly commercial work. While it was a good way to learn a lot fast.....I'd never do it again. For one thing the architects would make (major) changes on a job and my budget would not adjust accordingly. Any complaints I had in this regard were disregarded. The other aspect of it was they had a low view of engineers. So I've done industrial work ever since (and in firms that do a lot of that type of work: when architects are involved, they have to explain themselves when they start acting crazy, i.e. they are under an engineer's control).

So its got its pros and cons....but mostly cons.

 

[Once20036]

I work in a large company that does it all in house - structural, civil, architectural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, HVAC, refrigeration, fire protection, and process. It is primarily design/build fast track projects, roughly 30% new buildings and 70% retrofits. The structural department began approximately 8 years ago, before that all the work was contracted out. My previous background was in a more traditional structural consulting company. I've noticed a couple differences.

-From a coordination standpoint - the communication isn't as good as it was in my previous company. While conversation are easy because everyone is a couple desks away, there seems to be a mentality that coordination meetings aren't necessary, and that any changes made (equipment layout, column spacing, etc) will be quickly and promptly picked up by everyone else working on the project because all of the Xrefs are shared.

-There is a lot more coordination work that continues into construction. When the work was contracted out, they would receive a set of construction drawings and build them. When I started, (and there was a slow transition from contracting the work to keeping it in house) I noticed more and more changes being made after the start of construction on projects that we designed in house. Relocating rooftop units, for example. I believe this is because it's much easier to walk across the room to make changes than it is to sign a contract for additional services with the consultant. This late-coordination progressed into people simply not doing their job until construction has begun. We've had projects where the number of rooftop units doubles, or units double in size, and I believe it's because the mechanical designers think that the structure can be changed on the fly when they walk across the room.

-The work gets pretty far away from designing buildings sometimes. Someone mentioned checking the strength of toilet paper holders up above, and while that hasn't happened yet, it wouldn't surprise me.

-Often when someone gets an answer they don't like, "No, you can't just remove that cross bracing", they imply the consultant we often used would let them do it. Often times, its absurd what they want to do and I think they're just trying to use some leverage to get away with it. It gets a little tiresome..

If I were to go looking for a new job today, I think I'd prefer the more traditional consulting company.

 

[KootK]

Thanks for the comments guys. The last couple of posts pretty much sum up all of my fears regarding this arrangement. I think that a lot of what keeps structural engineers from pursuing this model is earning potential. As a commercial/residential structural engineer, most of your value is embodied in the relationships that you have with the local architects that distribute the work. As an in-house structural engineer, you're really just developing those relationships with one architect. And, even at that, it's an architect unlikely to use you if you leave.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

 

[XR250]

For me, it would come down to money and the possible lack of variety of the types of jobs you would be working on